When I first read of John Kerry’s remarks holding our troops in Iraq up as an example of what happens if you fail in school, my contempt for the man – already high – passed over into the realm of having the mere mention of his name trigger my gagging reflex. How in the name of all that is good and holy did this man come so close to commanding these very same troops that he has so cavalierly disparaged? And an even more basic question this election season is can’t the Democrats see that Kerry, as their nominee for the highest office in the land in 2004, speaks for them when is quoted thusly?

The contemptuousness that Kerry showed by making those remarks was exceeded by his statement today that, rather than clarifying his remarks or apologizing for them, he hurls the rawest and most shocking invective at Republicans only seen perhaps on the far left websites that the Senator from Massachusetts has been writing for recently:

“If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they’re crazy. This is the classic G.O.P. playbook. I’m sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did.

I’m not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson’s disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq. It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have.”

Note for the record that Kerry does not even address the subject of his insulting remarks. Rather, he slimes his critics – a classic defense strategy for murderers and rapists but not, one assumes, a United States Senator who ran for President two short years ago.

Those are extremely personal attacks. Rarely does a politician immerse himself so thoroughly in excremental politics by debasing the motives, the honesty, and the honor of his opponents as Kerry did in that short statement. No doubt, the ignoramuses on the left are cheering Kerry on. This, the man who consorted with the enemy during the Viet Nam War, who met with representatives of the Viet Cong and agreed to carry their propaganda water for them here in the United States while that very same enemy was shooting and killing men in uniform that Kerry now pretends to respect.

Kerry is as cold and calculating a politician as there has been on the American scene since Nixon. Whether he knew his remarks would generate the firestorm of controversy that they have is beside the point. Given the opportunity to give the finger to his opponents while catering to the powerful netnuts and their ability to mobilize money, resources, and political support, the Senator designed his response to appeal to the far left as a way to separate himself from other potential Democratic presidential hopefuls. He has become angry and spiteful – just like them. In this, the Kos Kids and others on the far left see Kerry as a kindred spirit, someone who “speaks their language.” How well this personae will play in 2008 remains to be seen. For the moment, it allows him to bask in the glow of their admiration and affection.

Michelle Malkin points out that coverage of Kerry’s remarks by the MSM is sorely lacking. One week before the election, this shouldn’t be surprising; not the way that most news organs have cheered the Democrats on in shockingly shameless fashion. What little attention that has been paid to the Senator’s remarks have come as a result of reaction to them by the White House and other conservatives.

Lost in all of this was what Kerry actually said – that if you didn’t study hard, do your homework, and make an effort to be smart, a student would get “stuck” in Iraq – and what was implied. The obvious implication that Kerry did not address in his statement today was that our soldiers in Iraq are the dregs of society, that they are failures in school and should not be emulated.

Sickening. And the fact that the Senator doesn’t deny either what he said or what he implied in his statement today shows that the remarks were exactly as he meant them, that there was no misunderstanding.

So far, no major Democratic figure has come out and chastised Kerry for his remarks. We may be in for a long wait if we are expecting such condemnation any time soon. At bottom, it really doesn’t matter in a political sense. Kerry could be discovered naked in Osama’s bed and it wouldn’t help the Republicans that much. And in this respect, it gets me madder at Republicans than I was yesterday. How conservatives so thoroughly bollixed things up in Washington and allowed people like Kerry to perhaps sit in the majority by their arrogance and malfeasance should make all of us mad.

UPDATE

Kerry now says he was trying to make a joke about President Bush and that the last line of the joke was “...You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq.” Predictably, the netnuts have rushed to Kerry’s defense.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind – nor should there be in any rational observers’ – that after watching the video of those remarks by Kerry he meant exactly what he said and that he said what he meant to say.

There was no fumbling for words. There was no stumbling over a sentence – two clues that would lead one to give the Senator at least the benefit of the doubt. And the emphasis he placed on “stuck in Iraq” as well as with the tone of voice that bespoke such utter and complete contempt for the military leads one to the inescapable conclusion that Kerry is a liar of monstrous proportions when he says that he left a couple of words out of a joke on Bush.

Why does this surprise us? He has consistently disparaged the military during his entire public life. He has demonstrated utter contempt for ordinary Americans on numerous occassions.

Those of you who believe this mountebank should go and watch the video. Then you come back here and tell me that he was joking.

While the bloody, ongoing drama in Iraq continues to occupy the attention of most Americans, events in Pakistan threaten to upset the delicate balancing act that President Pervez Musharraf has been forced to perform with more conservative, anti-American factions in the government as well as pro-Taliban tribes ensconced along the border with Afghanistan.

The strike at a madrassa in the northern federally administered tribal area of Bajur that was aimed at killing al-Qaeda Number 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri may have missed its intended target. But original reports that it was the Pakistani military that carried out the attack seems to have been issued solely for Musharraf’s benefit; the facts on the ground as well as leaks from US military sources point to missiles being fired from a US Predator drone as the probable means by which several top level al-Qaeda leaders may have been killed along with dozens of Taliban and al-Qaeda recruits.

From Musharraf’s point of view, the revelation that the attack was probably carried out by Special Operations units designated as “Task Force 145” could not have come at a worse time. Already, his enemies are calling for demonstrations to protest what they say was Musharraf’s acquiescence in a violation of Pakistani sovereignty. And, according to analyst Bill Roggio, the attack put a crimp in Musharraf’s latest effort to appease the Taliban by signing an agreement with local terrorist leaders in Bajur that would remove the Pakistani army from the region and effectively deny the military the ability to prevent access to Afghanistan by the militants:

The strike came just as the Bajur accords were supposed to take place (similar to the Waziristan accords that now prevent Pakistan’s military from operating in that region). Officials within the Pakistani government were supposedly worried when early reports surfaced that Faqir Mohammed may have been killed. Faqir Mohammed is a Taliban leader in the region who would have been a major signatory to the accords: if he were killed, the Pakistanis wouldn’t know who could enter into the accords with them (or, to put it cynically, with Faqir Mohammed dead they wouldn’t know who they were supposed to surrender to). However, Mohammed survived. He apparently felt so confident in his safety that he gave an interview to NBC News at the scene near the blasted school, and also attended—and spoke at—the funeral for the 80 who died in the strike.

At this point, the Bajur Accords are on hold. While we will probably see some payback from al-Qaeda and the Taliban, my source noted that there’s not a whole lot more they can do: these groups tried to kill Musharraf less than a month ago, and are already carrying out terrorist attacks in Pakistan.

The agreement reached with the Taliban and al-Qaeda in North Waziristan, while hailed at the time by the US State Department and Musharraf as a victory against terrorism has actually proved to be an unmitigated disaster for NATO forces in Afghanistan. Taliban fighters poured across the undefended Pakistani border into Afghanistan by the hundreds. Recent battles between NATO and the terrorists have taken place at the battalion level with the Taliban attacking with small arms as well as rocket propelled grenades and mortars. While several hundred Taliban fighters were killed in these battles, both the numbers of attackers and the quality of their weaponry underscores the fact that Musharraf’s efforts to rein in al-Qaeda and the Taliban in the tribal areas of northern Pakistan have been an utter and complete failure.

Musharraf probably realized this from the outset of his negotiations with the Taliban in Waziristan (now referred to as “Talibanistan” by locals). And he couldn’t have been deaf to the repeated calls by NATO commanders in Afghanistan that he do more to seal the border areas where Islamic militants infiltrate and carry out attacks against NATO and Afghan civilians. Why then the “terrorist outreach” program with the pro-Taliban tribes in Bajur?

As was the case in North Waziristan, Musharraf has simply accepted the reality that he cannot do as Washington wishes and fight the growing extremist elements that threaten his hold on power with any kind of consistency or fervor. Anti-western feelings have become a powerful political force in Pakistan and any move by Musharraf that could be seen as getting closer to Washington or doing America’s bidding places his rule in jeopardy. His alliance with the religious parties in Parliament as well as his relationship with the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency has made any bold military moves against al-Qaeda or the Taliban nearly impossible.

Hence, his negotiations in Bajur should be as one more indication that Musharraf sees the temporary appeasement of the Taliban as his only “out.” There are indications that he did not follow through entirely with conditions he negotiated with the terrorists in North Waziristan – specifically, he refused to release about 200 al-Qaeda operatives named in the treaty. This led to an attempt on the President’s life earlier this month. While it is unlikely that the strike against the madrassa in Bajur is connected directly to the assassination attempt, the strike nevertheless sent a message to the Taliban that Musharraf was not entirely a free agent; that he must also deal with Washington and their allies in Afghanistan.

And Musharraf’s relationship with Washington is becoming more and more problematic for both sides as time goes on. The resurgence of the Taliban, buoyed by funds from Afghanistan’s record opium crop last year, has meant that large swaths of Pakistani territory have been co-opted by the terrorists. Wherever the Taliban gains control, Pakistani sovereignty disappears. Musher initially tried using the military to clamp down in the tribal areas but found to his dismay that the Taliban fighters were both too elusive and supported by too many tribal leaders for his soldiers to make a real dent in the terrorist’s control of the region. Recognizing this, Musharraf has signed these agreements in North and South Waziristan as well as negotiated in Bajur as a means to survive. Washington may not like it. But it is, for all practical purposes, Musharraf’s only play.

Despite Musharraf’s attempt to play both ends against the middle in his efforts to appease his enemies as well as his benefactors in Washington, there really is nothing that can be done to change the strategic situation in favor of the west. Too many hands are raised against against him for any kind of dramatic reversal of policy to be in the offing. This analysis gives a pretty good summary of Musharraf’s perilous situation:

He is a difficult subject to interpret. He has at various times been a declared supporter of the Taliban, a committed enthusiast for the war on terror, a militarist, a peacemaker, a defender of liberty and a dictator. If that sounds an incoherent career, just look at the chaotic situation in which he operates and much of it becomes self-explanatory.

Like all military rulers, Musharraf has, first and foremost, to placate the armed forces on which his power depends. He has also had to make (unkept) promises to the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, a coalition of Muslim, pro-Taliban parties. Then, in the broader perspective, he needs to keep the United States and its allies happy, playing the role of a zealous warrior against terror and jihad. It is a challenge at which an Italian Renaissance prince of the Machiavelli school might have balked.

The Predator strike may have been a way for the US to go over Musharraf’s head while giving the Pakistani President “plausible deniability” so that a popular uprising against his rule could be avoided. At the same time, it is would be a huge mistake to try and undermine Musharraf’s rule. Simply put, there is no one else in Pakistan who could cooperate with the US the way that Musharraf can. Anyone on the horizon who would take control in a coup that ousted the President would almost certainly be anti-western in their outlook and perhaps even ally themselves with the Taliban. And in a country that sports 60 nuclear weapons, it would be hard to come up with a more catastrophic scenario than that.

Instead, we must work to strengthen Musharraf’s hand where we can and pay lip service to his efforts to appease the Taliban in the tribal areas. An unsatisfying policy to be sure. But the alternatives are just too horrible to contemplate.

Safety Mike Brown, out for the season with foot surgery, will be sorely missed for the rest of the year.

My beloved Bears, stung by their sub-par performance against the Cardinals on Monday night two weeks ago, appear to have blood on their minds as they prepare to battle the San Francisco 49’ers today at Soldier Field.

For two weeks, the defense has seethed over the ease with which the Cardinals scored on them in the first half of that dreadful Monday night game. On top of that, the loss of All-Pro safety Mike Brown to a foot injury for the rest of the year seems to have renewed their focus and steeled their resolve – all in all bad news for the gents on the other side of the ball today.

It’s not that the 49’ers don’t have a quality offense. San Fran QB Alex Smith has shown flashes of brilliance in his young career, although the quality of his receiving targets has been somewhat lacking. Frank Gore is a serviceable professional running back who hits the hole hard and has deceptive speed. While it’s not likely that the 49’ers will be able to run effectively on the Bears, Gore is good enough to keep the Bear’s front 4 honest enough not to pin back their ears and rush the QB with wild abandon, intent on putting Mr. Smith under the sod.

But unless the D-line comes down with a collective case of trench foot, look for Smith to be running for his life most of the afternoon. In this respect, Smith has proven himself mobile enough that he will probably be able to hurt the Bears at times. Whether it will be enough to overcome the 49’ers porous defense and wretched special teams is doubtful.

Dead last against the pass and not much better against the run, the Niner’s will have to pin their hopes on Rex “The Wonder Dog” Grossman having a second straight horrendous game in order to stop My Beloved’s offense. Wonder Dog admitted after the Cardinals game that his decision making was atrocious. Look for Rex to take shallower drops and shorten the passing game. With TE Desmond Clark almost 100% recovered from a sprained foot, expect the tight end to figure prominently in the offense – especially on first and second downs.

We can also plan on seeing more of Cedric Benson. There were murmurs around Halas Hall that Benson may take over the entire 3rd quarter running back chores. If so, he may have the game of his pro career. Benson needs 15-20 carries a game in order to get into the flow of the offense and contribute what he is capable of doing. And with CB’s blocking and pass catching improving all the time, it will be harder to keep the 2005 1st round pick out of the lineup for much longer – especially when you consider what they’re paying the guy. Benson can be a very good pro; perhaps even a top tier running back. And I have a feeling if Thomas Jones continues to struggle, Benson may be slotted in at running back for a start sometime soon.

As for special teams, I would look for another long return from “The Windy City Flyer” Devin Hester. The Niners are dead last in punt return coverage and if they give the kid a crack, he’ll be gone before you can say “Tony Bennett.”

For the non-Bears fan, it will be easy to lose interest along about half time. I expect the Bears to be up by at least 2 TD’s by then with San Fran fading fast. This may be one of those games where what appears to be a mismatch on paper, fully lives up to its billing as a slaughter.

As we wind down toward the end of this, the most bizarre Congressional election in memory, the Democrats appear to be holding their breath in anticipation of victory, hoping against hope that no one realizes that the national media, their candidates, and even their opponents have failed to ask the one question that any political party on the cusp of power should be able to rattle off an answer to with ease:

Just what is it you stand for?

Fortunately, it has not been necessary for them to annunciate any grand ideas or overarching themes that would motivate their mass of voters to go to the polls on election day. This is because the Republicans have all but handed the keys to the Majority washrooms to the Democrats on a silver platter with nary a vote being cast. Spectacular arrogance, malfeasance, cowardice, and a slimy essence permeating the halls of Congress during the last few years have all but sealed the deal and, failing a not insignificant miracle, guaranteed a Democratic coup.

Having acknowledged that the Republicans certainly don’t deserve to win, this could be one election where all those dead people registered to vote by ACORN, the unions, and other Democratic party activist organizations may actually have as much idea of what the winning party stands for as anyone else – thus making their vote as intelligent and perspicacious as say, the mindless morons at the Democratic Underground or Daily Kos. Of course, dead people probably don’t smell very good which means they’d fit right in at gatherings of other Democratic party activists such as those at Moveon.Org meetings.

But promising America their supporters will bathe once and a while would at least be an idea that Democratic politicians could run on. The fact is that few Democrats in competitive races are bothering to annunciate any set of coherent principles save 1) George Bush sucks; and 2) They’re not Republicans.

Iraq? No plan to win or get out except “timetables” for troop withdrawals that don’t mean diddly because there are as many timetables floating around as there are Democratic candidates for President. The economy? (SHHHHHHHH…no go zone). Immigration? We are against calling it amnesty even if it really, truly is. Homeland security? We can do better even though we reserve the right to impeach the President of the United States for initiating surveillance programs that precious few of us have called on him to abandon.

Even believing in bad ideas is better than believing in nothing at all. But since the focus of this election is entirely on Republican shenanigans and stupidity, all the Dems have to do is tread water, smile for the cameras, and accept the glowing encomiums of a press that is beating the Tom-Toms (is it racist of me to include that descriptive?) for every Democrat within range. Gone are all the wild-eyed liberals. This is the party of “moderates” now. Not scary at all just a little eccentric about things like national security and enemy identification. Don’t worry about a thing we’re told. Elect a Democratic majority and all will be right as rain.

Given the way the polls have been trending the last week or so, it appears that most Republicans and many conservatives have “come home” just in time to make many races competitive while perhaps even tipping some Senate races into the red column which would allow the GOP to keep their majority in the Senate. And what Charles Franklin at Pollster.Com calls a built in “firewall” for the Republican House members against huge losses thanks to both 1990 and 2000 redistricting efforts by the GOP that managed to carve out dozens of safe seats, it seems likely that Democratic gains – while significant – could probably be erased in 2008 with a strong candidate at the top of the ticket and much better candidate recruitment.

And given the state of the world, including coming confrontations with the madmen in North Korea and Iran, the differences between the two parties on the overriding issue of national security will still be at the top of the voters’ agenda two years from now. Unless the Democrats can prove over the next two years that they take the security of the United States as seriously as they take investigating Republicans – including the President – the voters are more than likely to lose patience rather quickly and put back into power a party (hopefully chastened and back in touch with its conservative roots) that knows what side it wants to win in Iraq and who the enemy trying to kill us is.

Join me this morning from 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM Central Time for The Rick Moran Show on Wideawakes Radio.

Terror in the skies? A look at a possible “dry run” by terrorists to test our airline security. More on Iraq from Ralph Peters, Peter Bergen, and Bill Roggio. And a disturbing look at the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan.

WE HAVE INSTALLED A NEW SCRIPT FOR THE “LISTEN LIVE” BUTTON IN HOPES THAT IT WILL WORK BETTER.

To access the stream, click on the “Listen Live” button in the left sidebar. Java script must be enabled. It usually takes about 20 seconds for the stream to come on line.

NOTE: If you’re still having trouble accessing the stream, try using Firefox and/or closing some programs.

IF YOU STILL CANNOT ACCESS THE STREAM, PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT BELOW TO THAT EFFECT.

It is an axiom of politics that the candidate who finds himself trailing going into the home stretch of a campaign must “go negative” in order to make up the deficit before election day.

The thinking behind this strategy is not to get voters to change their minds necessarily but rather so disgust the supporters of your opponent that they stay home on election day.

Congratulations, George Allen. You’ve hit the jackpot.

Issuing a press release that quotes a character from one of Webb’s saucy war novels doing unspeakable things to his own son (sorry – find the damn link somewhere else. I don’t link to porn.), Allen may very well have sealed his victory by “outing” Webb’s fictional day dreams but he has lost his soul in the process.

Yes, yes, I know all the excuses my intelligent and worthy commenters are going to give below. It’s in the public domain. It is weird. Allen included a plethora of other quotes showing Webb’s disdain for women in the press release – in a way much more disturbing than the incestuous porn and barely concealed pedophilia. And Webb’s dishonest attacks on Allen’s character deserve to be answered in kind.

But doesn’t this make anyone else’s skin crawl? Both because Webb wrote it and Allen brought it into a political campaign?

Don’t get me wrong. I’ve written many times that politics is a full contact sport and that just about anything is fair game when it comes to the kind of bare knuckled, Pier Street brawl that the Allen-Webb contest has become.

But I also believe that politics is not a zero sum game. There must be limits beyond which a candidate is penalized for exceeding. The absolutely disgusting nature of the passages quoted in the Allen press release fills that bill. The fact that they are quoting piece of fiction obviates only slightly Webb’s startling and disturbing imaginative wanderings into the sexual dark side of the human mind as it also reveals the depths to which Allen’s honor and integrity have sunk.

If this doesn’t doom any Presidential hopes for the Virginia Senator, it certainly should.

This “outing” does nothing to elevate the debate over Iraq, homeland security, the economy. or any number of other important issues. But then, few campaigns going today are interested in doing so. Perhaps, as in other times in our history, the real issues are so divisive, so painful to discuss that we substitute this kind of excrement and call it politics so that we don’t have to face the hard choices.

The winds of history are blowing gale force outside our door while inside, the occupants are tearing at each other’s vitals, going toe to toe, hammer and tongs over trivialities, personality quirks, and the real or imagined malfeasance of one party or another. Evil lurks in dark corners, conspiracies flourish, and the absolute worst of our fellow countrymen is said and believed.

In some ways, the election of 1800 was similar. The Democratic Republicans (Jeffersonians) were convinced that 4 more years of Federalist rule would doom the American experiment. Democrats were telling anyone who would listen that the Federalists wished to establish a monarchy along with a debased aristocracy while corrupting the republic with their money schemes and unconstitutional actions.

The real issues were the formation of a national bank and the support of the Federalists for Great Britain in their war with Napoleon. The campaign carried out against one of the greatest Americans who ever lived, John Adams, was shameful. Rather than attack his policies, the Democrats went after Adams personally. The viciousness of their attacks depressed the great man and caused a rift in his friendship with Jefferson that was to last almost 20 years.

In the end, Jefferson and Adams healed the wounds from that campaign and, in the most remarkable of exchanges in the history of American letters, explored the philosophy and politics that made up the basis of the grand experiment in democracy in which they both played such a vital role. Their letters – affectionate, teasing at times, and thoughtful – prove that even the rankest of political enemies can find common ground if a modest effort is made.

I daresay that Allen and Webb will be enemies until the day they die. A pity, that. Both men have proved in the past that they have a lot to offer the country. And given the perilous times in which we live, we could use whatever wit and wisdom they could contribute to public life in America.

Now, the George Allen campaign has detonated its October surprise using the same tactics as Cheney’s and Libby’s critics—attacking the fiction of his Democrat opponent, James Webb via an official “press release” sent to the Drudge Report last night. Are the passages in Webb’s “Lost Soldiers” bizarre and perverted? Yes. But they are no more proof of Webb’s immorality and unfitness for office than the passages in “Sisters” are proof that Lynne Cheney hates men or that the passages in “The Apprentice” are proof that Scooter Libby endorses sex between children and bears.

Agreed. But the efficacy of using Webb’s words as a device to attack him in some way still rubs me the wrong way.

With Democrats and their allies in the media in full throated howl, agitating for a withdrawal from Iraq while gravely informing the American people that the war is already “lost,” George Bush had the temerity to stand up at a press conference yesterday and tell us not only the war can still be won but that we are, in fact, winning:

President Bush declared yesterday that the United States is winning the war in Iraq despite the deadliest month for U.S. troops in a year, but he added that he is not satisfied with the situation and vowed to press Iraqi leaders to do more to stabilize their country on their own.

Trying to walk a careful line between optimism and pessimism less than two weeks before midterm elections, Bush lamented the “unspeakable violence” raging in Iraq while trying to reassure American voters that he is adapting his approach to address it. He vowed to “carefully consider any proposal that will help us achieve victory” as long as it does not involve withdrawing troops prematurely.

“Absolutely, we’re winning,” Bush said when pressed at an East Room news conference. At the same time, he said, “I know many Americans are not satisfied with the situation in Iraq. I’m not satisfied either. And that is why we’re taking new steps to help secure Baghdad and constantly adjusting our tactics across the country to meet the changing threat.” He said that he is pushing Iraqi leaders “to take bold measures to save their country” and emphasized that his patience “is not unlimited.”

An exercise in empty rhetoric? A man out of touch with reality? Wishful thinking being substituted for cold, hard facts?

This was the instant judgement of the President’s political opponents, as dismissive of the President’s pronouncements yesterday as they have been for at least 2 years. Because of that, their credibility as war critics is about as high as the Administration’s credibility on what progress has been made in winning the war. Describing the ebb and flow of events on the ground in Iraq does not lend itself to the kind of reflexive, hate filled, wildly skewed analysis coming from the left or the Pollyanish statements of progress by the Administration (“Last throes,” anyone?).

And for those of us who are examining both the military’s efforts on the ground and the rhetoric of the Administration for signs that someone, somewhere in Washington has a clue of what constitutes “victory” in Iraq, the announcement that “benchmarks” have been agreed to between Washington and Baghdad for the withdrawal of American troops could be seen as either more window dressing hyped by an Administration in political trouble or a real sign that the government has hit upon a formula to declare victory and bring the troops home.

These “benchmarks” are really nothing new. The Pentagon itself tried its hand at developing its own set of indicators for withdrawal as far back as March, 2005. Those fell by the wayside as the situation on the ground in Iraq began to worsen early this year following the bombing of the Shia shrine in Samarra. At that point, the sectarian violence radically escalated and any hope for an early troop withdrawal went out the window.

Instead of clear cut goals that would have given the Iraqi and American people a definition for “victory,” the Administration settled for sloganeering. “As the Iraqi army stands up, we will stand down” sounds wonderful as a sound bite but means precious little when placed in the context of training an army from absolute scratch with no infrastructure, no modern weapons, untested officers, and sectarian divisions. And political progress, while impressive in some respects, still depended largely on the American army enforcing the will of a government that appeared at times to be paralyzed by its own political divisions.

Speaking with conservative columnists in the Oval Office, the President had this to say about benchmarks:

The latest plan to retake the offensive on defining victory is the so-called benchmark. â€œThe idea is to develop with the Iraqi government a series of benchmarks â€” oil, federalism, constitutional reform, thereâ€™s like 20 different things â€” and have that developed in a way that theyâ€™re comfortable with and weâ€™re comfortable with,â€ Bush said. Progress toward those goals would give the administration new ways to point toward overall progress in Iraq.

Beyond that, the president seemed to be considering a plan to refine the countryâ€™s governmental structure in a way that would accommodate the Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd populations without dividing the country. â€œWeâ€™ve had a lot of people out there saying, split up the country,â€ Bush said. â€œThatâ€™s not going to work. But there are ways to achieve a more balanced federalism from what some people think is going to happen to them. There could be more â€” like Texas, we always want less federal, more state. And thatâ€™s the way â€” this balance can be achieved through negotiations. Thatâ€™s what theyâ€™re trying to do.â€

Are these indicators specific enough to allow the government to celebrate a “victory” in Iraq at some point in the next few years?

The answer is no. The fact of the matter is that the President is absolutely correct when he said in the Oval Office briefing yesterday that “victory” is being defined by our enemies:

â€œThis is the significant disadvantage we have in this war because the enemy gets to define victory by killing people,â€ Bush answered. In World War II, Bush said, progress, while hard to gain, was easier to describe. One could point to ships sunk, and battles won. â€œWe donâ€™t get to say that â€” a thousand of the enemy killed, or whatever the number was,â€ Bush said. â€œItâ€™s happening. You just donâ€™t know it.â€

So if the U.S. chooses not to reveal how many of the enemy it has killed â€” and if, in any event, that death toll is not stopping the sectarian violence â€” then how does one assess what is going on? â€œIâ€™ve thought long and hard about this, because it is precisely what is frustrating most people,â€ Bush said. â€œA lot of people are just saying, â€˜Youâ€™re not doing enough to win. Weâ€™re not winning, youâ€™re not doing enough to win, and Iâ€™m frustrated, I want it over with, with victory.â€™ And Iâ€™m trying to figure out a matrix that says things are getting better. I think that one way to measure is less violence than before, I guessâ€¦â€

What the President didn’t say is that our “defeat” in Iraq has already been defined by the press and his political opponents. William Arkin is convinced:

America will be humbled when we leave Iraq. Let’s recognize this is the bitter pill we must swallow now. It ironically will improve our standing in much of the world as we admit that we need the world’s help. It will force us to make a reality of our empty pledge to pursue non-military solutions to the challenge of terrorism.

And what of the enemy? Muslim extremists and terrorists will celebrate our defeat, emboldened even more into believing that they can “win” their war, just as they once defeated the Soviet empire in Afghanistan. It is our punishment and the conundrum: They will celebrate, and they may even be momentarily strengthened. But by stepping off the treadmill, we will also remove so much of the inspiration and certainty that fuels our enemies.

When we exit Iraq, it will not be a peaceful, democratic island in the troubled seas of a despotic Middle East. It may not even have an elected government if things continue the way they have in recent months as the insurgents and terrorists have ratcheted up the violence to unbearable levels in order to give the Democrats ammunition in the upcoming November elections. Nor will it necessarily be a willing partner in our war against Islamism.

But it will not be a threat. It will not have WMD’s. And it will not have Saddam Hussein running the country. This is why, despite all the gleeful rhetoric emanating from the left and from the media about an Iraq “defeat,” there are already benchmarks in place that we can point to that constitute a “victory” for the United States in Iraq. The fact that our enemies, the Democratic party, the western press, and even some conservatives will lament our “defeat” in Iraq doesn’t mean that they are correct or that the judgement of history will bear out their analysis.

One need only look at World War I for a comparison. Did we lose The Great War? Despite vanquishing the German Army and throwing them out of France, they came back 20 years later with a vengeance to conquer most of the continent. In this respect – and using some of the yardsticks Iraq defeatists use – World War I was a disastrous defeat of epic proportions. With 80 million dead in World War II (not to mention the occupation by the Soviets of Eastern Europe) our military efforts in World War I should be seen as a gigantic failure. It solved nothing and left Europe worse off than before the war.

Clearly, different “benchmarks” are in play for different wars. But my own feeling is that Iraq will desperately be played up as a defeat no matter what condition it is in when we leave. And for that, the “Iraq defeat” crowd should be ashamed of themselves.

In a shocking display of insensitivity, not to mention gracelessness and incivility, Limbaugh accused actor Michael J. Fox, who carries on a daily battle with Parkinson’s disease, of exaggerating the symptoms of the disease in several political commercials for Democratic candidates:

To Rush Limbaugh on Monday, Michael J. Fox looked like a faker. The actor, who suffers from Parkinson’s disease, has done a series of political ads supporting candidates who favor stem cell research, including Maryland Democrat Ben Cardin, who is running against Republican Michael Steele for the Senate seat being vacated by Paul Sarbanes.

“He is exaggerating the effects of the disease,” Limbaugh told listeners. “He’s moving all around and shaking and it’s purely an act. . . . This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox. Either he didn’t take his medication or he’s acting.”

Limbaugh went on to say that it was the only time he had seen Fox exhibit symptoms of the disease and that “he could barely control himself.”

Limbaugh must have realized how extraordinarily stupid and insensitive his remarks were because he apologized for them later in the show. What possible good that did except highlight the broadcaster’s utter contempt for common decency is beyond me. Apologies don’t get it done in this case.

Perhaps Limbaugh should be sentenced to a class on how Parkinson’s progresses and what the afflicted must deal with every day just to get out of bed. Here’s a description of the disease from the National Institutes of Health:

The four primary symptoms of PD are tremor, or trembling in hands, arms, legs, jaw, and face; rigidity, or stiffness of the limbs and trunk; bradykinesia, or slowness of movement; and postural instability, or impaired balance and coordination. As these symptoms become more pronounced, patients may have difficulty walking, talking, or completing other simple tasks. PD usually affects people over the age of 50. Early symptoms of PD are subtle and occur gradually. In some people the disease progresses more quickly than in others. As the disease progresses, the shaking, or tremor, which affects the majority of PD patients may begin to interfere with daily activities. Other symptoms may include depression and other emotional changes; difficulty in swallowing, chewing, and speaking; urinary problems or constipation; skin problems; and sleep disruptions. There are currently no blood or laboratory tests that have been proven to help in diagnosing sporadic PD. Therefore the diagnosis is based on medical history and a neurological examination. The disease can be difficult to diagnose accurately. Doctors may sometimes request brain scans or laboratory tests in order to rule out other diseases.

Limbaugh’s reference to Fox being off medication fails to take into account that even if the patient is on one of the many drugs that help alleviate some of the symptoms of the disease, that each day is different for the Parkinson’s patient. Altering dosage as well as changing medication is a frequent necessity in order to allow the Parkinson’s sufferer to live something close to a “normal” life.

The left, of course, is having a field day with Limbaugh’s ignorant and ill tempered remarks as well they should. But perhaps they should also be wary of casting the first stone in this case. The shameless exploitation of people like Fox and the late Christopher Reeves in pushing embryonic stem cell research in a political context is dishonest, appealing as it does to a voter’s pity when the only basis for deciding whether such research should be funded by the government must be the quality of the science that could be achieved.

And in that case, there is much room for disagreement.

Speaking purely as a secularist, the scientific argument over the efficacy of using embryonic stem cells vs. adult stem cells (which, in fact, have no restrictions when it comes to funding), has yet to be resolved. In fact, the evidence suggests that even the so called “undifferentiated” embryonic stem cells supply little additional value to the cause of research given the enormous strides made in recent years using adult stem cells.

The scientific debate has taken a back seat to what many pro-life advocates see as using the fruits of abortion to advance human knowledge. While some of their arguments are compelling, the fact remains that under the law, an embryo is not a person and therefore can be treated as any other body part that is donated to the cause of science. Embryonic stem cell research is perfectly legal. The question is whether or not the government should fund it.

To determine whether or not our tax dollars should go toward this kind of research, the exact same criteria we use to decide whether to fund other scientific projects should be used. And in that respect, advocates for embryonic stem cell research have failed so far to make the case that using embryos is different than using adult tissue. It’s that simple. And for Democrats to play to the pity of voters by showing a wheel chair bound Christopher Reeves or a palsied Michael J. Fox and hint that if only those evil, mean, nasty Republicans could be defeated, Reeves would walk and Fox would be cured is nothing more than a disguised attack ad which uses a disgusting appeal to emotionalism. It is dishonest. It is exploitive. And Limbaugh was correct in calling attention to this shameless display of political tomfoolery.

But in typical Limbaugh fashion, the broadcaster had to go beyond the mundane kind of criticism levelled here and seek out controversy. It’s one of the reasons I stopped listening to him years ago. As his fame has increased, so too has his need to stand out. And sometimes – like yesterday – he goes too far out on the limb and he’s forced to make a hasty retreat.

Except in this case, the branch broke before he could scramble back to safety.

Limbaugh owes Fox more than an apology. If he were an honorable man, he would have Fox on his show to discuss the ravages of the disease and help his audience understand how cruel a life becomes when suffering from such a debilitating illness. Perhaps then, both Rush and his listeners will understand how truly despicable his comments about Fox were and why such a storm of condemnation has so righteously broken about his head.